What's your opinion of GURPS?

[Conaill]

In my opinion, GURPS is a superior game sytem to D&D in almost all respects. (Fine, flame away, see if I care... ) It does have a smaller community of players, which is the main reason I'm primarily playing 3E right now. At least 3E has adopted some of the features that GURPS and other more modern game systems have used for years, i.e. skills and feats (advantages in GURPS). BESM d20 goes even further by deconstructing classes into a point-based system.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm having a lot of fun playing D&D! But if I could find a good GURPS group in the area (or better, if I could convert my current group of D&D friends to playing GURPS), I wouldn't hesitate for a second...

 

[Halivar]

I got another question. How would you stack GURPS against Palladium, both setting-wise and mechanics-wise?

My impression of Palladium was "take the setting, throw away the rules." How facilitative of fantasy/sci-fi/horror/supers "atmosphere" are the rules?

In D&D there is very little you can do creatively in combat. You can flank, you can charge, you can disarm, you can grapple. That's hardly the gamut. I'm willing to risk rule-bloat if it means I can say I do something, and then be able to at least try to do it. Does GURPS not let you do this any better than d20?

 

[takyris]

Not to hijack, but I really appreciate the discusssion of roleplaying versus cinematic description. After growing frustrated with the "swing. miss. swing. hit. 18, 2 fire" version of D&D combat that grew from my group's attempt to make combats go quickly, I'm starting up a d20 Modern game with an emphasis on cinematic combat. I plan to bestow bonuses liberally for swashbuckling or cinematic behavior, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes.

I've found that with D&D in particular, it's all about the flavor text. You can make 18 points of damage into a tiny scrape that throws off the opponent's concentration and gets him a bit nervous about the hero's low stabs, or you can just say, "He looks as though you've hit him for about a quarter of his hit points." There are some players who WANT to gradually whittle down their opponents until they finally finish them off with one clean strike -- so that even though it took 8 hits to bring him down, he only has one wound. There's no reason not to give that to them, if it makes things seem cooler.

 

[Conaill]

In D&D there is very little you can do creatively in combat. You can flank, you can charge, you can disarm, you can grapple. That's hardly the gamut. I'm willing to risk rule-bloat if it means I can say I do something, and then be able to at least try to do it. Does GURPS not let you do this any better than d20?

Haven't played Palladium, so I can't help you there. But the philosophy in GURPS is much more along the lines of giving modifiers on your attack roll if you're trying to do something fancy.

So whereas a D&D DM might say "No, you can't do that, because you don't have feat X", a GURPS GM would be much more likely to say "Hmm, that seems like a very complicated maneuver. Your attack will be at a -5. Still want to try?"

By the way, Advantages in GURPS tyend to be abilities of a fairly innate nature, not something you can just pick up with practice. So the various combat maneuvers are typically available to anyone who wants to try them. You just need to have the skill to pull them off, no special feat required...

 

[bret]

I really like GURPS, whereas I find D20/DnD3E barely tolerable.

Things I like about GURPS include:

• Skills are given a difficulty, but the difficulty is the same for any character learning it. You don't have it being twice as difficult for a mage to learn to swim or climb than a warrior.
• Picking up a new skill is just a matter of time and training. No waiting for next level before you can learn to climb/swim/apply first aid/etc. I find it easier to get into the game because things work closer to how they would in the real world. When mixing genre, this can be a big thing. Never seen a gun before? Take a gun training course, within a few weeks you will be an adequate shot assuming full time training.
• You're hit points are fairly static. Over the course of a campaign, it is highly unlikely that you will double your hit points. You will probably get better equipment, allowing you to survive some things that you couldn't before, but without your equipment the dagger thrust in the heart is still extremely deadly. Some threats will always be extremely deadly, regardless of power level.
• You can build the type of character you want. No straight-jacket. If you want a warrior who casts spells, that works. If you want a mage that is a skilled seaman with all the appropriate skills, no problem. If you want an archeologist that is extremely lucky, go for it. With D20, I'm constantly finding myself fighting the rules to try and create the type of character that I want.
• Characters of vastly different point levels can still work together in a team. You don't have the problem where a 1st level character would just get squashed in any combat a 5th level group gets involved in.

There are several things that people have problems with in GURPS.

• Things aren't balanced, just because you paid 8 points for a skill doesn't mean that skill is as useful as a different skill. The system is fair (in that any character had an opportunity to take the advantage or learn the skill), but it isn't balanced. The rules assume that the characters will choose what skills they will find useful. Being an expert swimmer just isn't going to help in a desert campaign, but survival (desert) also isn't going to help you swim a river.
• Choose which rules you are using. There are a *lot* of optional rules in GURPS, don't even attempt to use them all. Choose the focus of your campaign, use the rules that are appropriate for the level of detail you want. You might even choose to only use some rules in special occations. For example, you might choose to only use the most basic combat rules in normal fights -- reserving called shots, random critical hit determination, and other advanced rules for the climatic battles. As another example, if someone has a reasonable skill in driving, reserve the skill rolls for when they are doing tricks, not when they are going to the market.
• Build a team, not a group of individuals. Have a link between the character, and build characters whose skills match their backgrounds.

Some of the things I like about GURPS others are going to hold as disadvantages. That is fine, I'm not someone who says all games must use the same system. Personally, I have three that are my favorites depending on campaign type:

• GURPS for the Sci Fi and exagerated realistic campaign. These campaigns are not quite as deadly as reality would be, but they also aren't wuxia. They are things that may streatch the participants belief, but aren't so far out there that people say it is rediculous.
• Feng Shui for Action. When you want wuxia, this is the system. Want to do a back flip off the current motercycle, kicking the driver in the head, and land on the cycle behind it? No problem. James Bond is a beginning character type in this system.
• Champions/Hero for 4-color comic book action. Lethalness is greatly reduced, the normal person can withstand stuff that would kill you in reality. Superpowers abound. The system is balanced by the cost of effects.

Regardless of if you like GURPS or not, check out the worldbooks. Even people that absolutely hate the system find the world books to be interesting and useful.

 

[Mercule]

Well, Im apparently in the minority here. IMHO, GURPS is the most horribly designed game ever imagined.

That said, I've only played it once. All reports from the gaming community that I was involved with were that the GM I played with was extremely good and we had similar styles -- which leads me to believe that it was the system, not the GM that stank. This one session that I played in was several orders of magnitude more painful, frustrating, and boring than the time we tried to do the original ToEE with 24 players, half of whom were drunk out of their minds (my second worst gaming experience -- it took us two hours to make it from "Okay, let's head to the moathouse" to knocking on the door, without any encounters of any sort).

I inherited a GURPS rulebook a few months ago from someone who was getting completely out of gaming for personal reasons. I've read a most of the non-powers/magic chargen rules with the idea that maybe I'd give it another try. So far, the rules have been lackluster, at best. I just can't see anything redeeming or interesting in them. And this from someone who loves to learn new systems, "just 'cause."

As far as what I like to play, I tend to believe that a system has a significant impact on the "feel" of a game, so I have a whole slew that I like.

I use HERO as a general fall-back. If I was allowed only one system to play for the rest of my life, it would be either HERO or d20; probably HERO. Why? It scales well for pretty much anything from nasty-gritty to cosmic supers. Our group has used it for high-fantasy, low fantasy, wierd fantasy, espianage, supers, dark supers, Cthulhu-esque horror, X-Files type horror, White Wolf type horror, sci-fi, cyberpunk, and some odd combos of the above. It has done great for all of them.

I do tend to use genre speciafic systems, though, when they're available.

The one I've played most, besides the various flavors of D&D, is Storyteller (White Wolf). I ran a Vampire game that lasted 3-4 years and a Mage game that lasted 2-3 years. I've also played in several long term Storyteller games. Nice setting. The system leaves a bit to be desired, though. It actually accomplishes what it sets out to do rather well -- facilitate fast, rules-light play in a mood-intense setting. From a pure mechanics standpoint, though, my group has termed Storyteller "The worst system that remains playable." Take the comment as intended, though. Like I said, other than D&D/fantasy, Storyteller/WoD is the game in which I've probably played the most.

Shadowrun is also a favorite of mine. I haven't played it in 10+ years, though because it hasn't appealed to the groups I've gamed with. Typically, I have a real disdain of tech mixed with magic or magic-as-tech. Shadowrun is the only setting that I've ever seen than really does it acceptably well.

Paranoia is always good for some laughs.

Rolemaster has been used as a diversion a few times, as has it's first cousin, MERP.

I was in a ShatterZone game for about a year. That was really fun, but I can't find a copy of it anywhere -- suppliments, but no core rules.

A game I think has a lot of potential, but which appears too complex to most people is Aria. I've run a couple of short-lived games of that, but not everyone fits the style for which it was designed -- think D&D from an archeological/anthropological view.

Back to GURPS, though. I'd rank it as somewhat less pleasant than open heart surgery, cracked chest and all, sans anesthesia. If you want a good universal system, use HERO.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Personally, I liken to GURPS to the Mac/PC wars that evenutally the PC won.

GURPS is inherently a better system than D&D. Its rules are better and more realistic. Its character creation system more adaptive and creative. It gives the GM alot of latitude in adventure creation. It allows you to play any genre.

Where did they go wrong? GURPS was supported and marketed poorly. D&D was supported and marketed very well.

I think the ace in the hole for D&D was modules. Modules and adventure support make D&D a much easier game to play and run. Very few roleplayers have the time to sit down and design their own adventures. GURPS does not provide good adventure support, and thus makes the game difficult to play save for those GMs who are willing or able to spend the time to design interesting adventures. When your working a full time job, have a family or outside life, and D&D is your hobby, you need that adventure support.

All in all, GURPS is a great game system. Its lack of adventure support make it inviable save for those able to spend a good deal of time designing adventures and campaign worlds. GURPS is not user friendly as in it does not support easy play like D&D.

 

[Mercule]

Re: Re

Personally, I liken to GURPS to the Mac/PC wars that evenutally the PC won.

That's funny. If I were to use that analogy, I'd compare GURPS and HERO, with HERO being the better game, but coming out on the losing end (SJG at least makes enough cash to be a full time gig, HERO Games is a part time thing).

Of course, I don't belive Macs are worth much, either. I always found the Mac OS to be somewhat inferior to DOS (seriously, Win 95 was the first GUI that was worth using, IMHO). At least the Mac OS beats Win 3.1, but it's a tough call.

I've heard good things about OSX, though.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I was thinking more in terms of the RISC processor.

 

[Tonguez]

I started playing Basic D&D, hated 2e and switched to GURPS -loved it-tried some Palladium-hated it-went back to GURPS and tried to create my own system (don't we all)-then 3e came out with its skills and feat system and simple streamlined mechanic I switched back to 3e

Now all I want is a Classless Featbased D20 system (ie GURPS d20 would be my idea of the perfect system)